Tuesday, 21 February 2017

The U.P. elections appear to me somewhat like the Mahabharat War.
In the Mahabharat War there appeared to be only two contestants, the Pandavas and the Kauravas, but there really was a third, Lord Krishna, who was fighting without fighting.
So also, in the U.P. elections there are three contestants, the Akhilesh-Congress alliance, the BJP and the BSP..
I have predicted that victory will go to Akhilesh, who is a Yadav, and therefore a descendant of Lord Krishna, with Arjun ( the Congress ) by his side.
Has not the Gita said that victory wlii go where : :
" Yatra Yogeshwarah Krishno, Yatra Partho dhanurdharah " ?
( see the last shloka of the Gita ).
As for the Kauravas, the Bheeshmas, the Dronacharyas, the Karnas, the Kripacharyas, the Ashwatthamas etc, along with the crafty plotters, like Shakuni Mama and Jayadrath, they will all bite the dust.
Jai Shri Krishna

Pakistanis, your misguided and stupid forefathers sowed the seeds of Partition in 1947, and now you are reaping the whirlwind.

A suicide attack in a popular shrine in southern Pakistan has killed at least 72 people, police say. The bomber blew himself up among devotees in the shrine of Sufi saint Lal Shahbaz Qalandar in the town of Sehwan in Sindh province, police said

The real Islam of the Indian sub continent is Sufi Islam, and not Wahabi or Salafi Islam. The sufis taught compassion, tolerance and universal brotherhood ( including brotherhood with non Muslims ), not the bigotry of the Wahabis and Salafis.

In a country like India with such tremendous diversity, only Sufi Islam can be accepted here. Wahabism or Salafism has no place.

But once you create a theocratic state like Pakistan, Wahabism and Salafism were bound to grow and spread bigotry and terror.

The only remedy is reunification of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh under a secular govt. which does not tolerate religious bigotry and extremism, and crushes it with an iron hand

Both Prof. Noam Chomsky and Prof. Richard Wolff of America are proponents of syndicalism, that is free self controlled workers cooperatives of the kind of the Mondragon Cooperative in Spain.

But the basic defect of such workers cooperatives is that they will only think of their own interest, rather than of the interest of the country as a whole, including the consumers.. Moreover, when a new capital intensive technology appears, they will be face...d with a serious dilemma. Accepting it may throw many workers, and therefore its own members, out of work. Not accepting it would mean that they may become uncompetitive, since other workers cooperatives doing the same kind of manufacture may accept it, and thus be able to reduce its cost of production by laying off some workers and thus saving labour costs. Also, it would impede the advance of technology..

The theory of workers cooperatives, in which the cooperative seeks profits for itself ( and therefore for its members ), suffers from the same defect which Adam Smith's theory of laissez faire suffers. It only replaces the individual industrialist by the cooperative. But the 'invisible hand' behind the cooperative would really mean that industries which are labour intensive gradually become more and more capital intensive ( with the advance of technology ) in search for more profits, by laying off many workers. However, in the process unemployment is generated, and therefore the market shrinks as less and less people have adequate purchasing power ( because the purchasing power of a worker laid off is drastically reduced ). How then will the goods manufactured be sold ?

A centralized system of production under a central government enables national planning, and thus a scientific and all round, coordinated progress on all fronts of the economy. Its aim is not just making profits, but raising the standard of living of the people.

The advocates of workers cooperatives are opponents of a centralized economy as they fear that a government running such an economy would become dictatorial and undemocratic. But that need not necessarily be so. If the government comes into the hands of genuinely patriotic, self sacrificing and modern minded people it would lead to rapid all round economic progress and giving a high standard of living to the citizens of such a country

Monday, 20 February 2017

To
The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India
Shri. Narendra Modi... New Delhi.

Dear Sir
Democratic Youth Federation of India , an All India youth organisation, requested me to send this appeal to you.
I am writing this letter in the context of the brutal murder of a Software professional, Ms.Rasila Raju OP, in the premises of Infosys company in Pune on 29th January. It is really worrying that atrocities against women are increasing even in the work places which were thought to be safe. The Hon’ble Supreme Court issued guidelines in Vishaka and others Vs State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC 3011) about the safety of women at work place, but these do not seem to have been followed.
I appeal to your govt. to order an investigation by the CBI into this henious crime so that the perpetrators of the crime are given harsh punishment, and to ensure that such incidents are not repeated.
It is the duty of the Government to ensure that no woman in the country ends her life like Ms.Rasila Raju.
With Regards
Yours Faithfully
Justice Markendeya Katju
Former Judge Supreme Court of India
Copy to:
1.Shri. Rajnath Singh
Hon’ble Home Minister of India
2. The Home Secretrary
Govt.of India
3.The Hon’ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra.

All religions are superstitions, the truth lies in science, which is not something final, but is constantly developing. There is no God, soul ( and therefore no transmigration of the soul ), angels, fairies, witches or any other supernatural entity. The only reality is matter ( or rather matter-energy, as Einstein demonstrated ) but matter is in motion, in accordance with certain laws, which can be discovered by scientific research.

Religion and science are poles apart. Religion says there is a thing called God, which is permanent and all powerful. The religious books e.g. the Vedas, the Quran, the Bible, etc are final, and cannot be changed. Science believes that nothing is permanent or final, but is changing according to certain laws, which can be discovered by scientific research. It is true that some scientists believed in God, but that is because for a long period scientific and unscientific ideas will co-exist as the scientific and unscientific outlooks struggle with each other.

But with every advance of science religion recedes. For example, at one time people in their ignorance believed that small pox is due to the wrath of a goddess ( mata ), but now we know it is due to a virus, which can be checked by vaccination. At one time people believed that drought is due to the wrath of the god Indra, who had to be propitiated, but now we know that rain is caused by build up of high pressure and low pressure areas, and drought is due to the non build up of these areas.

As for the question who created matter ( and the Universe ) the answer is : nobody created it. Matter came from matter, in other words, it always existed, but is in motion. If we presume everything must have a Creator, then logically that Creator, too, must have a Creator, i.e a Super Creator, and that Suoer Creator, too must have a Creator, i.e. a Super Super Creator, and so on. We are thus caught in the fallacy of the infinite regress.

Sunday, 19 February 2017

There is no construction without destruction
To those who suggest this or that reform in the legislature, judiciary or executive of India, my simple answer is this : any radical and sorely needed reform will meet such fierce resistance from the entrenched vested interests in India, who want no major change, that it will certainly fizzle out.
For instance, everyone knows of the inordinate delay in disposing of court cases, which often linger on for decades, but no radical step can be taken to remedy the situation, as the vested interests will stoutly resist it. Everyone knows that parliamentary democracy in India has largely degenerated into caste and communal vote bank politics, but no serious effort is made to change this.
I am reminded of the situation in France before the French Revolution of 1789. The most sorely needed reform then was in the taxation system then prevailing in France. Under it, the richest classes, the nobility and the church, which owned almost all the land in France, had to pay no tax, while the bulk of the burden of taxes fell on the peasantry, the poorest section of society. This was grossly inequitable, but every attempt to change this system and levy tax on the nobility and church was so fiercely resisted by these classes that it ended in fiasco.
With the French Govt. under heavy debt and without money to pay it, and the financial situation desparate as the govt. expenditure far exceeded the govt. revenue, Minister after Minister of King Louis 16th proposed a tax on the nobility and church to generate the funds needed---Turgot, Necker, Calonne---but each was hounded out of office by a cabal of powerful vested interests including the King's brothers ( the Dukes of Artois and Provence ), Queen Marie Antoinette, etc. The Assembly of Notables, consisting of nobles and bishops, was called by the King in 1787 to try to persuade these classes to accept taxation on them, but instead of consenting to it, they thought that by procrastinating they could wave away the move. Hence they passed on the buck by suggesting an Estates General, which was held in May 1789, and was the beginning of the French Revolution.
It was only when their manors began to be burnt by the peasants, and the Bastille was stormed on 14th July, 1789 with the beheading of its Governor and others, that 'wisdom' dawned on the nobles, who realizing that now their own necks were in danger, in a sudden act of 'generosity' gave up their feudal rights on the night of 4th August 1789. (That, of course, did not save their necks. )
So it is no use to talk of reforms in India any longer. What is now needed is a Revolution. There can be a building which can be repaired or renovated. There can be another building which is so dilapidated that no amount of repair or renovation will do, and it needs demolition and fresh construction. India today is like the second kind of building. Its system of governance has become so rotten that no amount of tinkering with it will do.
And there can be no construction without destruction

Thursday, 16 February 2017

The Indian Century After China's betrayal of the underdeveloped countries, India, with its huge pool of engineers, technicians, scientists, etc, immense natural resources and large territory has potentially assumed their leadership. We are therefore going to play the most crucial role among all nations in world history in the 21st century, which will be characterized as the century in which the underdeveloped countries struggle to become developed, thus ensuring a high standard of living and decent lives to all their peoples. But the whole developed world ( including China ) seems to have ganged up against India . This is because with our cheap and huge labour force and industrial base we can undersell the developed countries. As I have pointed out earlier, cost of labour is a big chunk of the total cost of production, and if the cost of labour is less, the cost of production is less, and then one can sell at a cheaper price. Who then will buy the expensive products of the developed countries ? Countries with cheap labour thus have a distinct advantage over countries with costlier labour, provided they have an industrial base. India is the most developed of the underdeveloped countries, and is huge. We have also an industrial base today, which we did not have in 1947. We are therefore in a perfect position to become a developed nation, and thus ensure to our people good lives. But for that we face a long, arduous struggle ahead, as the developed countries will do their level best to ensure that we do not succeed in obtaining our national objective. And for that we must unite and stop fighting among ourselves on the basis of caste, religion, region, language etc This century is going to be the Indian century

A Govt. which will be run from jail Before going to jail, Sasikala readmitted her nephew Dinakaran, who had been expelled by Jayalalitha, into the ADMK and appointed him Dy. General Secretary of the party ( she herself will, of course, remain the General Secretary ), and now it seems her stooge Palaniswami will be your next Chief Ministerhttp://www.hindustantimes.com/…/story-5JAqnRGxPETyrlp3o0fj7…
So Tamizhans, congratulations ! You will now have the distinction of having a. government for the next 4 years being run behind the scenes by a convict found guilty by the Court of gross corruption. Palaniswami will faithfully carry out her orders from jail. But dont worry, Tamizhans. The precedent for that has already been set by another state which has stolen a march over you

Monday, 13 February 2017

Some thoughts on Economics for India
While thinking about what to say in my speech in the forthcoming function at NIT, Tiruchirapalli on 17th February some thoughts occurred to me, which I am noting down :
The English economist Adam Smith in his classic book ' The Wealth of Nations ' published in 1776 advocated open markets, and relatively barrier free domestic and international trade. In other words, Smith was against not only constraints on domestic industry, but also against protectionist policies against international competition.
In contrast, the German economist Friedrich List in his book 'The National System of Political Economy ' published in 1841 said that international free trade would result in subjection of the less advanced nations by the predominant manufacturing and commercial nations. He advocated protection to domestic industries by less industrialized nations ( by customs duties )..
It may be mentioned that England was the first country in the world to industrialize. German industrialization began later, and at that time German industries were small compared to British industries, so they needed state protection to face the competition of British industries, otherwise German industries could not survive. This protection, List argued, should be in the form of customs duties on British goods.
A giant can fight another giant. But a child cannot fight a giant. So a child must be protected and nurtured until it, too, becomes a giant.
List pointed out that when Britain was doing its own industrialization, it was done under heavy protection to its industries. But when it had broadly completed its industrialization, Britishers were preaching free trade to other nations.
List wrote " Had the English left everything to itself—'Laissez faire, laissez aller', as the popular economical school ( i.e. Adam Smith's schl ) recommends—the German merchants of the Steelyard would be still carrying on their trade in London, the Belgians would be still manufacturing cloth for the English, and England would have still continued to be the sheep-farm of the Hansards. Indeed, it is more than probable that without her highly protectionist commercial policy England would never have attained to such a large measure of municipal and individual freedom as she now possesses, for such freedom is the daughter of industry and wealth ".
The German authorities followed List's recommendations, with the result that Germany could rapidly industrialize. Japan, too, did the same, and so did USA
Since India is less industrialized as compared to developed countries, in my opinion India too must follow List's theory. Our industries need protection if they are to grow. For instance, Chinese goods are capturing our markets, and in my opinion heavy customs duties should be imposed on them, or their entry into India should be prohibited altogether.
This does not mean I am in favour of restoration of the licence-permit raj which had strangled our economy for decades. I am against most of internal restraints, and am only referring to free entry of foreign goods into India, to give protection to our own industries.
At the same time, special help by the state should be given to our new industries and new entrepreneurs so that they can tide over the difficulties which all new entrants face. In particular, special help and concessions should be given to small and middle level industries, as these have few reserves and financial back up. Youth starting as entrepreneurs should be given special help, e.g. in the form of loans at low interest, free technical advice, tax holidays for long periods, etc.
Most of the nations which are today industrialized did their industialization under governments which were friendly to their domestic industry and helped promote it. India too should do the same.

Sunday, 12 February 2017

Why I don't have faith in parliamentary democracy
Under the Indian Constitution we have adopted the British system of parliamentary democracy. I don't have faith in it, and in my opinion it is unsuitable to India, and so deserves to be scrapped.
Parliamentary democracy relies on the vote of the majority. But the majority is usually stupid, guided by emotions, prejudices and conservative thinking rather than by reason and scientific thinking.
Let me give an example. When Copernicus ( 1473-1543 ) said that the earth goes around the sun ( heliocentrism ), rather than the sun around the earth ( geocentrism ), most people believed in the Biblical and Ptolemaic view that the sun goes around the earth, and visual observation of the movement of the sun from dawn to dusk also seemed to support this view. We see the sun arising from the east, moving gradually until noon when it is overhead, and then gradually going down until it sets in the west. But Copernicus went deeper than the mere visual impression and reasoned that the same phenomenon ( sun arising from the east and setting in the west ) could be caused by the earth rotating on its axis.
Now this capacity to go deeper is a trait of genuine intellectuals, but not shared by common men who are satisfied with the superficial. In fact Copernicus' theory was dangerous, because it went against the Bible, and in those days speaking against the Bible was a crime, often of a capital nature. Galileo ( 1564-1642 ), who supported Copernicus' theory narrowly escaped being burnt at the stake during the Inquisition ( by recanting his view ).
So the minority is often right and the majority, who are usually conservative by nature and with backward, feudal mindsets, often wrong.
In India the majority of people are casteist, communal and superstitious. If we go by their views no progress is possible.
Today India requires scientific thinking to abolish poverty, unemployment, lack of healthcare and good education, etc. But our politics under the present parliamentary system of democracy is largely based on caste and communal vote banks. When most people go to vote in elections they do not see the merit of the candidate, i.e. whether he is a good man or bad man, educated or uneducated, etc but only his caste or the party representing a caste or religion. That is why there are so many people with criminal backgrounds in our legislatures. Most of our present politicians are utterly selfish and unpatriotic, with no genuine love for the people, but they are experts in manipulating vote banks and polarizing the people on caste and communal lines. Casteism and communalism are feudal forces, while the national interest requires destruction of feudal forces. How then can our country progress under the present system ?
Therefore we must have a new system in which the leadership of the country comes in the hands of genuinely scientific, rational and patriotic thinkers whose only concern is welfare of the people, and not self aggrandizement.. This is not possible under a system based on majority vote of people with a backward, feudal mindset..

Saturday, 11 February 2017

Arvind Kejriwal has nothing in his head Arvind Kejriwal is not an intellectual. He wrote a book called 'Swaraj' in which he wrote that we should devolve power to the village and mohalla panchayats. But anyone having an understanding of social realities knows that most of the village panchayats are centres of casteism and corruption, and usually they are under control of big landholders or money lenders. Many of the village pradhans have grabbed the gram sabha land which was ...meant for the common use of all villagers.So how can handing power to village or mohalla panchayats solve the country's massive problems of poverty, unemployment, child malnutrition, healthcare, etc.? Kejriwal may be an I.I.T. graduate, but he has no idea how to solve the massive problems facing the country.. However, he has become as cunning, crafty and calculating as other politicians

Friday, 10 February 2017

Understanding World Developments

1. In modern times the planet earth has in fact not one world but two, the world of the developed or industrialized countries ( North America, Europe, Russia, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and now also China ), and the world of the underdeveloped countries ( India being the most developed of the underdeveloped countries )..

2. The iron unwritten and undeclared rule imposed by the developed countries has been that UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO BECOME DEVELOPED.

3. Why was this rule imposed ? It was imposed because if underdeveloped countries become developed the industries of the underdeveloped countries with their cheap labour, which is much cheaper than the cost of labour in the developed countries, would undersell the industries of the developed countries and thereby eliminate them by competition in the international market. Cost of labour is a big chunk of the total cost of production, and so if cost of labour is less the total cost of production is less, and one can then sell one's products at a substantially lower price, and thus undersell the industries of the developed countries, where labour is expensive.

4. However, in their search for super profits the developed countries set up some industries in the underdeveloped countries because labour was cheaper there. This was especially the case initially of industries requiring a huge amount of unskilled labour, which was available in abundance in the underdeveloped countries at a very cheap price. Thus, the British rulers set up many light industries like textile industries in India in which a lot of unskilled labour is required. Later, even many jobs requiring skilled labour, e.g. in the I.T. sector were outsourced to underdeveloped countries because labour costs were substantially lower there, and so profits could be greater.

5. After the Second World War this order was broadly imposed by the developed countries, but now it is coming apart, and the world is heading to a period of great historical convulsions, conflicts and chaos.

6. As mentioned above, the developed countries had themselves done a certain degree of industrialization in the underdeveloped countries in their search for super profits. But once the process of industrialization starts it picks up its own momentum and goes ahead. For instance, after Independence of India in 1947 a certain amount of heavy industries, e.g. iron and steel industries, were set up in India, as well as other industries. Today almost every country in the world has a certain level of industrialization.

7. The above process has contributed to the recession in the developed countries, because many of the goods which were earlier manufactured in the developed countries and sold in the underdeveloped ones are now being manufactured in the underdeveloped countries. Consequently the market for the industries of the developed countries has shrunk.

8. Unemployment is growing in the developed countries because (a) industries are becoming more and more capital intensive and automated rather than labour intensive, to reduce the number of workers and thus save labour costs (b) plants are being set up by companies of the developed countries in the underdeveloped countries rather than in their own countries, and jobs are being outsourced to underdeveloped countries, to save labour costs.(c) skilled personnel, e.g. I.I.T. graduates of India are picked up by companies in the developed countries and brought to the developed country as the cost of education in the underdeveloped country is much lesser than the cost of education in the developed country. So jobs are going to these foreigners rather than to youth of the developed country.

9. No doubt this outsourcing of jobs, setting up plants in underdeveloped countries and employing foreigners, has resulted in huge profits for the multinational corporations of the developed countries. But it has also resulted in growing unemployment in the developed countries, and consequential social unrest

10. Upto the Second World War there was a historical period of extreme nationalism, but after the War there was a period of internationalism, as the multinational corporations in their search for profits crashed through national borders. The European Union was created.

11. But now with the worldwide recession, which has been going on in the developed countries for a long time with no likelihood of a recovery, and the growing unemployment in the developed countries, we are witnessing a return to extreme nationalism, whose indications are Brexit and Trump's victory.

12. There is now likely to be a resurgence of protectionism and right wing politics, and consequential great turmoil and disorder

13. At the same time, people in underdeveloped countries like India are struggling to make their countries fully developed, because large scale industrialization alone will rid them of poverty, unemployment and other social evils.

14. But will the developed countries permit this ? If the underdeveloped countries become developed, then with their cheap labour their industries will undersell the industries of the developed countries.

15. A historical clash of the two worlds thus seems inevitable in the future

Thursday, 9 February 2017

On Patriotism
" Kabira khada bazaar main liye lukhati haath,
Jo ghar phoonke apna, chale hamare saath "
Literally this doha ( couplet ) of the great poet Kabir means
" Kabir stands in the market, flaming torch in hand.
Whoever burns down his house should come with me "
But that is only the figurative meaning. Its real meaning is :
" Whoever stands with the people, with patriotism in his heart
Should forget his self interest, and follow me "
Human beings have two basic attributes, reason and emotion. Of the two great ideological builders of modern Europe, Voltaire and Rousseau, the former emphasized reason and the latter emphasized emotion. Not that Voltaire did not have emotion or that Rousseau did not have reason. But the whole point is about the emphasis. Voltaire certainly had empathy for the suffering people, but he emphasized on rationalism, and was a fierce critic of religious bigotry. Rousseau, on the other hand, emphasized on compassion ( like the Sufis ) and attacked the whole feudal system, which was the basic cause of suffering.
The English political philosopher Hobbes in his ' Leviathan' had written that men are wicked by nature, caring only for their self interest. Rousseau disagrees, and says that apart from self interest, men also have the attribute of compassion for the suffering of his fellow humans
Thus, in his treatise ' Discourse on the Origins of Inequality ', written in 1754, he writes :
" Mandeville well knew that, in spite of all their morality, men would have never been better than monsters, had not nature bestowed on them a sense of compassion, to aid their reason: but he did not see that from this quality alone flow all those social virtues, of which he denied man the possession. But what is generosity, clemency or humanity but compassion applied to the weak, to the guilty, or to mankind in general? Were it even true that pity is no more than a feeling, which puts us in the place of the sufferer, a feeling, obscure yet lively in a savage, developed yet feeble in civilised man; this truth would have no other consequence than to confirm my argument. Compassion must, in fact, be the stronger, the more the animal beholding any kind of distress identifies himself with the animal that suffers.
It is philosophy ( i.e. self interest ) that isolates man, and bids him say, at sight of the misfortunes of others: "Perish if you will, I am secure." Nothing but such general evils as threaten the whole community can disturb the tranquil sleep of the philosopher, or tear him from his bed. A murder may with impunity be committed under his window; he has only to put his hands to his ears and argue a little with himself, to prevent nature, which is shocked within him, from identifying itself with the unfortunate sufferer. Uncivilised man has not this admirable talent; and for want of reason and wisdom, is always foolishly ready to obey the first promptings of humanity. It is the populace that flocks together at riots and street-brawls, while the wise man prudently makes off. It is the mob and the market-women, who part the combatants, and hinder gentle-folks from cutting one another's throats.
It is then certain that compassion is a natural feeling, which, by moderating the violence of love of self in each individual, contributes to the preservation of the whole species. It is this compassion that hurries us without reflection to the relief of those who are in distress: it is this which in a state of nature supplies the place of laws, morals and virtues, with the advantage that none are tempted to disobey its gentle voice: it is this which will always prevent a sturdy savage from robbing a weak child or a feeble old man of the sustenance they may have with pain and difficulty acquired, if he sees a possibility of providing for himself by other means: it is this which inculcates that sublime maxim of rational justice. Do to others as you would have them do unto you.
In a word, it is rather in this natural feeling than in any subtle arguments that we must look for the cause of that repugnance, which every man would experience in doing evil, even independently of the maxims of education. Although it might belong to Socrates and other minds of the like craft to acquire virtue by reason, the human race would long since have ceased to be, had its preservation depended only on the reasonings of the individuals composing it."
Patriotism is compassion for the whole nation. A genuine patriot forgets his self interest, and fights for the upliftment of his nation, and for the end of suffering of his fellow countrymen.
History is full of examples of patriots. Cincinnatus was a farmer, but when Rome was in danger he left his farm, took command of the Roman army, defeated the enemies of Rome, and then retired to his farm and obscurity. George Washington was a rich farmer in Virginia, but when the American colonies rose in rebellion against British rule, he took command of the Continental Army, defeated the British forces, and then handed back the sword of his command to the American Continental Congress, retiring to his farm.
In India, Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen ( Masterda ), Chandrashekhar Azad, Bismil, Ashfaqulla, Rajguru, Khudiram Bose, etc gave their lives for liberating India from British rule. Countless other such examples can be given. These men never bothered about their self interest, but had the flame of patriotism in their hearts, and they were guided by Kabir's doha, although they may have never heard of his name.
Today India needs genuine patriots to overcome the huge challenges it faces.
But unfortunately I am disappointed in most of our educated youth, in whose breasts the flame of patriotism should be burning. Most of them are selfish and careerists, whose only desire is to get cushy jobs and make money, and care two hoots for the country. How then will India arise ?

Tuesday, 7 February 2017

Indian 'intellectuals'
Intellectuals are the eyes of society, and without intellectuals the people are blind. That is why in all great revolutions the leadership is provided by intellectuals.
Today India sorely needs genuine intellectuals, as the Indian people are facing massive problems, and they need intellectuals to guide them.....

Unfortunately most of our so called 'intellectuals' are pseudo intellectuals, and not genuine ones. They have only bookish, half baked, sterile knowledge, which they have crammed from some books ( this is not to deny the value of book knowledge ), without reflecting on them. Most of our University Professors and other teachers and research scholars have such half baked and sterile knowledge, and they pass this on to their students.
For instance, when I was a student of philosophy in Allahabad University in the 1960s my teachers taught me that the difference between the 6 classical schools of Indian philosophy ( shatadarshan ), i.e. Nyaya, Vaisheshik, Sankhya, Yoga, Purva Mimansa and Uttar Mimansa ( Vedanta ) and the 3 non classical ones i.e. Buddhism, Jainism and Charvaka, was that the former rely on the authority of the Vedas while the latter do not.
But after I had passed out of the University and did my 'svadhyaya' I found that what my teachers had taught me was not correct. Only the 5th and 6th of the shatadarshans, i.e. Purva Mimansa and Uttar Mimansa ( Vedanta ) rely on the authority of the Vedas ( the Purva Mimansa relying on the Brahmana part of the Vedas or shruti, and the Uttar Mimansa relying on the Upanishads ). The first 4 of the shatadarshanas do not rely on the Vedas at all. Obviously my teachers had swallowed what was taught by their teachers without considering whether it was correct.
( see my blogs on Indian Philosophy SATYAM BRUYAT )http://justicekatju.blogspot.in/search?q=indian+philosophy
Similarly, not one of the Indian University Economics Professors and teachers, many of them having high sounding degrees from Harvard, Yale or the London School of Economics, has any clue how to solve the problems of recession and unemployment, which are the major problems plaguing India, and indeed the whole world today.
The same is the situation in other subjects like Political Science, Literature, History, etc
When I put up a fb post asking the difference between the theories of Locke and Rousseau, I did not get a single satisfactory reply. Ultimately I had to put up another fb post explaining the difference.
Our history has been totally distorted by the Britishers and their lackeys, but hardly any Indian historian has set it right.
No wonder the Indian people are bewildered and our nation is rudderless, like a blind man groping in the dark

Of the five names recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointment as Supreme Court Judges, four are Chief Justices, while one of them, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, is a puisne judge.

Perhaps the reason for selecting Justice Nazeer is that he is a Muslim, and there is no Muslim judge presently in the Supreme Court.

But Justice Nazeer was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Karnataka High Court in 2003, while Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed was appointed as a Delhi High Court Judge in 2002, and is senior to Justice Abdul Nazeer. Justice Badar Ahmed was born in 1956, while Justice Nazeer was born in 1958. Thus, Justice Badar Ahmed is also senior in age.

Justice Badar Ahmed is the seniormost Judge of the Delhi High Court after the Chief Justice of that Court. I was his Chief Justice in 2005-2006, and know him to be an outstanding Judge. If a Muslim was to be chosen for the Supreme Court it should have been the senior of the two.

I was also surprised that Justice K.M. Joseph, presently Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court was not recommended, although he has been an outstanding judge. There is a controversy over this non recommendation

While preparing for tomorrow's talk at Shriram College of Commerce, Delhi ( at 11 a.m. on 8.2.2017 ) on ' The Future of India ' some thoughts occurred to me, which I am noting down :

Politics is concentrated economics. So to understand political developments we have to understand the economic forces driving them

1. British imperialism conquered India to get markets and raw materials for the growing British industries. But in the process it started the process of industrialization in India, the very thing British industries did not want, because if Indian industry grew it would become a rival to British industry.

The British rulers broadly wanted to keep India unindustrialized, feudal and backward. As a result, in most parts of India upto the end of their rule in 1947 they retained the feudal zamindari system of land tenure, and did not permit setting up a heavy industrial base in India.

However, to earn super profits they set up some railways and light industries like textiles, plantations, etc, which too were for a long time under British ownership.

But once the process of industrialization starts in a country, it gathers its own momentum, and spreads.

Upto Independence in 1947 there were few industries and few engineers in India. But after 1947 a heavy industrial base ( iron and steel, etc ) was set up in India, and today in 2017 we have thousands of competent engineers, technicians, scientists, managers, etc and many industries in India. As a result, today our own industries produce many of the industrial goods our people need, and we do not have to import them. As a result, the market in India for British and other foreign goods has shrunk for British and other foreign industries.

Today in almost every under developed country there is a certain level of industrialization, the very thing the imperialist countries did not want, for the market for their own goods would then shrink . This also accentuates the recession presently going on in many developed countries ( which will be discussed hereafter ).

2. Britain has decided to exit from the European Union and European Common Market.

What is the implication of this ?

In my opinion it has profound historical importance, not only for England, but also for India, Europe, Asia, Africa, USA, and indeed for the whole world. It marks a drastic reversal of the process of internationalism which had been going on for quite some time after the Second World War. It is a step towards extreme nationalism and right wing politics, which is bound to spread everywhere, and create great disorder. Let me explain.

The extreme nationalism which was prevailing in the developed countries before the Second World War was replaced after the War by internationalism. Multi national corporations cut through national borders after the War in search of markets, raw materials and cheap labour, to increase profits. This process included hiring workers from other countries, particularly from underdeveloped countries, who were available at lower wages/salaries. It also included export of capital and outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Cost of labour is a big chunk of the total cost of production, and by getting foreign labour at lower wages/salaries the corporations could cut down their cost of production drastically, thus enhancing profits.

In Europe and America there are millions of foreign workers working at lower pay than local European or American employees. Also, many of the jobs in America and Europe have been outsourced to underdeveloped countries where employees are obtained at much lower pay.

This process has no doubt increased the profits of these multi national corporations, but has also led to great unemployment among the local people in Europe and America, resulting in massive discontent there. Europeans and Americans feel that the jobs in their own countries which should have gone to them have been taken away by foreigners. This is further exacerbated by the world wide economic recession which has been going on for quite some time. Unemployed people, especially the youth, are feeling that the jobs which should have gone to them have gone to foreigners.

Britain's decision to exit the EU should be understood in this light. It is not just exiting the EU. It is drastically reversing the process of internationalism, and is the first step towards going back to virulent nationalism.

There are 1.4 million people of Indian origin living in England, and many from other parts of Asia and Africa. Soon attacks on them by right wing goons will start, and the same is likely to happen in Germany, France ( which has a large Muslim population, mainly from North African countries which were earlier French colonies ), etc. Businesses of Indians in England ( Mittals, Tatas, Hindujas, etc ), and their Indian employees, may also be attacked, and so also of other Asians and Africans. They will all be told to get out and go home.

The step taken by England will sooner or later be followed by Germany, France, Italy, etc

So we are going back to the era of virulent nationalism, which was resolved in Europe by wars ( the First World War, Second World War, etc ). But after the development of nuclear and other such destructive weapons, such wars are unlikely to be repeated. So how then will the crisis be resolved ?

Moreover, Europe and America are heavily dependant on foreign labour, both inside these countries and abroad. If these are driven off or laid off, much more expensive European and American labour will have to be employed. This will drastically reduce the profits the multi national corporations are earning, leading to further recession, and so more lay offs and discontent.

3. There is a lot of talk in some Western countries of getting back the outsourced jobs to local people. Outsourcing these jobs to underdeveloped countries no doubt increased unemployment in the developed countries. But the multinational corporations outsourced these jobs because they could get their work done at a much cheaper price, because labour is much cheaper in the underdeveloped countries. Getting the jobs back to America or Europe means that much higher salaries will have to be paid, as American and European labour is expensive, and consequently the profits of the multinational corporations will decline. Will the multinational corporations, who are the real rulers of Western countries, accept this ? It is all very well to speak of getting back outsourced jobs in an election campaign, but implementing it is an altogether different proposition. That will be fiercely resisted by the multi national corporations.

4. For quite some time there has been an economic recession all over the world. From time to time we hear of a recovery, but in fact there has not been, and there is unlikely to be, a genuine recovery of the world economy for a long time. I will try to explain.

An economic recession is a feature of an industrial, not agrarian economy. In agrarian economies, too, there were catastrophies, but these were due to natural calamities like drought, epidemics, etc. An economic recession is a feature peculiar to industrial economies.

There have been recessions every eight or ten years ever since the Industrial Revolution of the 18th Century in Western Europe. These, however, were followed shortly thereafter by recoveries. But there has been one Great Depression which lasted from 1929 to 1939, and was ended only by the Second World War (in which 50 million lives were lost) which generated the massive demand for armaments, supplies to armies and war affected civilian populations, and capital for reconstruction, etc, and it was this massive demand which pulled USA out of the Great Depression. This Great Depression caused havoc in large parts of the globe, particularly in the developed countries.

We are now witnessing a persistent, and apparently unending, world economic recession, and its sweep is wider than that of the Depression of 1929, because while the latter affected mainly North America and Europe, the former is affecting the whole world, because while before the Second World War ( 1939-1945 ) many countries ( including India ) were largely unindustrialized, there has been a certain level of industrialization in most countries since then.

5. What is the cause of an economic recession or depression ?

The principal cause of an economic recession (or depression) is lack of sales, which in turn is due to lack of purchasing power in the masses. There are other causes also, but these are only incidental, and not the main cause.

A large part of the world’s population is so poor that it hardly has sufficient purchasing power. Even in the developed countries there are many poor people.

Apart from the above, as the industrial economy develops, in the process industries tend to become larger and larger, to effect economy of scale, and more and more capital intensive ( that is, labour being replaced by machinery ). This is necessary for industries to face the competition in the market, otherwise their rivals will become larger and more capital intensive and drive them out of the market, by underselling them. This process is inevitable in most industries, but it leads to large scale unemployment, since many workers in a labor intensive industry are laid off when it becomes capital intensive. This generates unemployment.

Let me explain. There is competition between businessmen in the market. Let us take a simple illustration. Suppose A has a shop selling a loaf of bread for Rs.20. Next to his shop is the shop of B selling the same size and quality loaf for Rs. 18. What will happen ? The customers of A will gradually leave him and become the customers of B, and B will eliminate A by underselling him. Thus one businessman eliminates another not by tanks, guns or bombs but by underselling him.

Now the same thing happens on the national and even international level.

To reduce his sale price a businessman has to grow larger ( to effect economy of scale ) and to introduce new technology. This is because cost of labour is a big chunk of the total cost of production. So if the cost of labour is less, the cost of production is less, and if the cost of production is less, the businessman can sell at a cheaper price, and thus eliminate his business rival.. By introducing new and labour saving technology in his plant, the businessman can cut down his labour costs, and thereby his cost of production.

Suppose a manufacturer had 500 workers working in his plant. With the advance of technology he may get a new machinery which requires only 100 workers to produce the same amount of goods which he was producing earlier. This means 400 workers will become unemployed. Even if 100 of these 400 workers can get jobs elsewhere this still leaves 300 workers unemployed. When we enlarge our scene (because the same process is inevitable in most industries) we find large scale unemployment is being generated everywhere.

Now the worker, apart from being a producer, is also a consumer. Of course a worker in a steel factory does not consume steel. But he and his family consume food, clothes, shoes and various other articles. When he becomes unemployed his purchasing power becomes drastically reduced. And when unemployment is generated on a large scale, the market correspondingly contracts on a large scale, and this leads to a recession.

Thus we see that the very dynamics of an unregulated industrial economy is that by the very inevitable process of its growth it keeps destroying its market.

The goods produced have to be sold. But how can they be sold when people have lost their purchasing power (due to widespread unemployment)?

Mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption. By taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers the industrialists deny to themselves the effective demand for their products that would justify reinvestment of their capital accumulation in new plants (which would also provide employment ).

Before the Great Depression of 1929 high level of employment was generated by high level of debt in the form of mortgage debts (for housing etc.), loans to buy cars and other consumer goods, brokers loans (for buying shares, etc.). The same thing happened in recent times. But this cannot continue endlessly. A time comes when people cannot repay their debts (due to unemployment or cut in real wages). Then debtors curtail their consumption, which reduces demand, and the producing units have to close down or drastically cut production.

In modern economies, most businesses require loans for their normal operations. Banks normally retain a small fraction of their deposits (5% or less) and give the rest as loans to borrowers. When the banking sector does not work properly (because of defaults by loanees) businesses do not easily get loans, and consequently they have to curtail their production and lay off workers. As they curtail production they require less raw materials and other supplies. Hence their suppliers have to reduce their output and lay off their workers. The suppliers to these suppliers have to do the same.Thus, this can set off a chain reaction.

If manufacturers cannot sell they cannot generate enough revenue to repay their loans. The business goes bankrupt and the bank finds in its hand non performing assets. Hence banks want to lend less. This becomes a vicious cycle.

Depositors get scared because some banks have collapsed due to the non performing assets. Hence they start withdrawing their money, and more banks collapse.

The economic recession is thus caused by the reduction of purchasing power in the masses which is due to the very dynamics of unregulated growth. The productive capacity has been enhanced enormously, but the vast majority of people are too poor to buy.

The problem, therefore, is not how to increase production, but how to increase the purchasing power of the masses. Production can be increased easily several times because there are tens of thousands of engineers, technicians, etc., and there are immense reserves of raw materials in India. But the goods produced have to be sold, and how can they be sold when the people are poor or unemployed, and thus have very little purchasing power?

The problem is also not how to increase demand. The demand is there, but people do not have the money for purchasing goods. In India, for instance, 75% people live on bare subsistence incomes. This may not even be sufficient for buying necessities, like food or medicines, what to say of durable consumer goods like motor cars, refrigerators, computers, air conditioners and other goods.

The solution to the economic crisis can only be by raising the purchasing power of the masses. How this is to be done requires a great deal of discussion and creative thinking , and all serious thinkers must now address this main problem facing our country, and indeed the whole world.

6. The situation in India today is that while we have recently increased the number of billionaires in our country, the poor have become poorer and even the middle class is finding it difficult to make two ends meet because of rising prices. This is a dangerous trend and if continued is going to lead to widespread social turmoil and social unrest. It is totally unfair to the vast masses of our people and it will not be tolerated very long.

Society owes subsistence to all its citizens either in procuring work for them on a reasonable wage, or in ensuring a livelihood to those who are unable to work.

As stated by the great French thinker Rousseau in his book 'Discourse on Inequality' : “Nothing can be farther from the law of nature,however we define it, than that a handful of people be gorged with luxuries, while the starving multitude lacks the necessities of life.”

So how do we increase the purchasing power of the masses, which alone can bring us out of the recession and the economic crisis ?

7. In socialist countries the method of raising the purchasing power of the masses, and thereby rapidly expanding the economy and consequently abolishing unemployment, was broadly this :

a. Prices of commodities were fixed by the government.

b. These prices were reduced by 5-10% every 2 years or so

c. This resulted in steadily increasing the purchasing power of the masses, because with the same income people could buy more goods. In other words, the real income of the masses went up even if nominally it remained the same ( since real wage is relative to the price index ).

d. Simultaneously, production was stepped up, and this increased production could be sold in the domestic market, as the purchasing power of people was steadily rising.

e. This led to rapid expansion of the economy, leading to creation of millions of jobs and thereby abolition of unemployment.

During the Great Depression which hit the Western economies in 1929 ( it continued till the breakout of the Second World War in 1939 ) when about one third or more people in Western countries were unemployed and factories were shutting down, the Soviet economy was rapidly expanding and unemployed abolished by following the above methodology.

Of course this was only possible in a socialist economy, where the problem was solved by state action.

I am not saying that we must necessarily follow the method adopted by socialist countries. We can adopt any other method if thereby we can raise the purchasing power of the masses and thereby rapidly expand the Indian economy, which is the only way of abolishing unemployment in India.. The central point, and therefore the main problem before India, is how to raise the purchasing power of the masses ? Do we follow the method of socialist countries, or some other method ?

8. Technical progress is expressed precisely in the fact that the work of machines pushes human labour more and more into the background. The scientific and technological revolution is steadily resulting in the radical and comprehehensive technical reconstruction of production, which will be converted into a vast complex of automated production systems. This transference of production from living to congealed labour no doubt results in higher profits and reduction of toil by humans, but it also increases unemployment. A number of Western thinkers, e.g. Norbert Wiener, have predicted that catastrophic unemployment is likely to hit more than half the economically active population in the world in the future, compared to which the Great Depression of 1929-39 was only a joke.

9. From the above analysis it is evident that the world is heading for a prolonged period of great chaos, extreme nationalism, and fascist tendencies, accompanied by great turmoil and turbulence. India will be part of this.

10. This period of turmoil and chaos will only end when a just social is created when everyone gets a decent life and a high standard of living ( see the speech in 1944 of former U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt called ' The Second Bill of Rights ' online and on Youtube )

.

Before the Industrial Revolution, which began in England in the 18th century, and then spread all over the world, the methods of production of feudal society ( which was basically an agricultural society ) were so backward and primitive that very little wealth could be generated. Consequently, only a handful of people ( kings, aristocrats, etc ) could be rich, while the overwhelming majority of the population had to remain poor. When the cake is small, very few people ca eat it.

But after the Industrial Revolution a unique situation has developed in world history. The modern methods of production are so powerful and so big that now enough wealth can be generated to give a decent life to everyone. Hence now nobody need be poor.

The struggles of the people in the 21st century will therefore be to create such a social order in which every human being enjoys a high standard of living.

Sunday, 5 February 2017

Many Tamizhans have sent me emails and facebook messages asking me to express my opinion about Shashikala who is likely to be the next CM of Tamil Nadu.

I do not know Shashikala, nor have I met her, and so I cannot express any opinion about her.

.

However, I may mention that when Akhilesh Yadav took oath as CM of UP in 2012, many people had started attacking him even before that, saying " Goonda raj has come in U.P.".. At that time, I issued a statement that we should give Akhilesh at least six months time in office, and if we do not find his work satisfactory in this period, we can then criticize him. However it would not be proper to condemn him before he even takes office.

I would therefore give a similar recommendation to Tamizhans about Shashikala. Give her some time, watch her performance as C.M., and reserve your judgment for at least 6 months. After that, if you find her work unsatisfactory, you have the right to criticize her

Many of my heroes are persons who fought against huge odds for freedom or some other high ideal, were unsuccessful and were defeated and killed or suffered some other harsh penalty.

For Indians, foremost among such heroes are Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen ( Masterda ), Chandrashekhar Azad, Ram Prasad Bismil, Ashfaqulla, Rajguru, Khudiram Bose, etc who fought against the British and were killed. They are our real freedom fighters, but they have been relegated... to the footnotes in our history books and described as mavericks and deviants outside the mainstream of the freedom struggle, while that feudal minded reactionary, hypocrite, fraud and British agent Gandhi has been painted as a 'Mahatma', and thrust down the throats of the gullible Indian people as the 'Father of the Nation' ( see my several blogs on Gandhi in my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in ).

Apart from these, my other heroes who fought against great odds for a high ideal but were defeated, are :

1. John Brown, who before the Civil War ( 1861-65 ) fought against slavery in America, but was caught and hanged

3. The Russian Decembrists, many of whom were idealistic memmbers of the Russian nobilty, who revolted against Tsar Nicholas 1 in December 1825, demanding a constitutional govt. as in England, but were crushed, hanged or incarcerated in Siberia for 30 years.

Saturday, 4 February 2017

A few days back I put up a fb post asking the JNU 'geniuses' about the difference between the theories in political science of Locke and Rousseau. Not one of these 'specialists' in social sciences could give a satisfactory answer. So I will attempt it here.

1. When we study political science theories we must examine (1) the historical background in which these theories were propounded, and (2) the personalities and personal lives of the propounders.

In Locke's central work on political science ' The Second Treatise on Civil Government ', written in 1690, in which he propounded his theory of natural rights, his main emphasis is on the right to property, which he regarded as a natural right, and which even the king or parliament could not violate. Locke regards only life, liberty and property as natural rights. But there was no mention of any right to equality as a natural right, unlike in Rousseau's ' Discourse on Inequality ' ( written in 1754 ). While Locke never attacked inequality in wealth, and Voltaire obfuscated on the issue, Rousseau, in his ' Discourse on Inequality ', clearly said : " It is obviously contrary to the law of nature, however it be defined, for a handful of people to gorge themselves on superfluities, while the starving multitudes lack the basic necessities of life "

Thus Rousseau realized that the ' natural rights ' of which Locke and others had spoken, were all meaningless to a poor or hungry man, because poverty is destructive of all rights.

2. As mentioned above, ' Locke's ' Second Treatise on Civil Government ' was written in 1690. This was after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 followed a long struggle between the Stuart Kings and Parliament. It established the supremacy of the British Parliament even over the King. It established a precedent which was unique : that Parliament could transfer the Crown from one head to another.

The Bill of Rights of 1689 gave the power of the purse, which is the real power, to Parliament, and laid down that the King could not raise taxes or levy troops without Parliament's consent.

At that time the members of the House of Commons represented the British middle class i.e. the commercial class in London and some other cities, as well as the rural bourgeoisie. So the victory of Parliament against the King represented the victory of the rising bourgeoisie over the feudal class.

But the Bill of Rights of 1689 did not give any rights to the people ( unlike the Bill of Rights the U.S. Constitution of 1791, or the Declaration of the Rights of Man by the French National Assembly in 1789 during the French Revolution ). It only gave rights to Parliament, which, as I mentioned above, did not represent the entire people but a small minority consisting of the commercial class and rural bourgeoisie.

This small minority were determined to defend their private properties, and it is in this historical context that we should study and examine Locke's theory.

3. Locke stated that private property is absolutely essential for liberty: “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” He continues: “The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.”

Locke believed people legitimately turned common property into private property by mixing their labor with it, improving it. Marxists liked to claim this meant Locke embraced the labor theory of value, but he was talking about the basis of ownership rather than value.

He insisted that people, not rulers, are sovereign. Government, Locke wrote, “can never have a Power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the Subjects Property, without their own consent. For this would be in effect to leave them no Property at all.” He makes his point even more explicit: rulers “must not raise Taxes on the Property of the People, without the Consent of the People, given by themselves, or their Deputies.”

Locke had enormous foresight to see beyond the struggles of his own day, which were directed against monarchy: “’Tis a Mistake to think this Fault [tyranny] is proper only to Monarchies; other Forms of Government are liable to it, as well as that. For where-ever the Power that is put in any hands for the Government of the People, and the Preservation of their Properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the Arbitrary and Irregular Commands of those that have it: There it presently becomes Tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many.”

Then Locke affirmed an explicit right to revolution: “whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty ".

4. We see from the above that Locke's emphasis is on the right to property, which was so fundamental according to him that even Parliament could not violate it, and if it did, the people had a right to revolution. But Locke does not regard equality as a natural right, obviously because the bourgeoisie which had come to power after the Glorious Revolution in England did not want economic equality.

5. Locke's theory of natural rights was thus directed not only against the King, but even against Parliament, though only if it tried to invade the citizens' property or liberty. But at that time Parliament was supreme, and so preaching a revolution against it was dangerous. It was for this reason that Locke kept his treatise anonymous, and only acknowledged it in his will.

6. Locke was a totally rational middle class man. On the other hand, Rousseau was very emotional ( see his 'Confessions' ), and he laid great emphasis on emotions. It was because of his passion and strong empathy for the sufferings of the poor people that he condemned gross economic inequality, something Locke never did.

7. Rousseau realized that the ' natural rights ' of which Locke and others had spoken, were all meaningless to a poor man, because poverty is destructive of all rights.

Rousseau would have found the Indian Constitution as an empty shell, because the socio-economic rights, without which the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part 3 ( freedom of speech, freedom of religion, liberty, equality, etc ) are meaningless, have been placed in the Directive Principles in Part 4, and have been specifically made non enforceable ( vide Article 37 ). Thus what has been given by one hand, has been taken away by the other.

The Indian Constitution, though no doubt doing some good for some time, by providing for civil liberties, secularism, etc has also , by not ensuring socio-economic justice to the poor masses in India ( see my articles ' Healthcare in India ', ' Malnutrition in India ', ' Unemployment in india ', ' Vikaas', etc on my facebook page and on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in ), and rather permitting further widening the gulf between the handful of rich and the vast majority of poor, has now exhausted itself. It can now no longer serve the Indian people, and has to be replaced by a Constitution which ensures real justice, which includes socio-economic justice, to the people, and not a mere fig leaf.

This,however, will only be possible after a great and drastic historical change in the social system prevailing in India,i.e, through some kind of a French Revolution. Thereafter, a Second Bill of Rights, as envisaged by former U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt in his speech of 1944 ( see online and on Youtube ) will be necessary

Friday, 3 February 2017

An application has evidently been filed in the Pakistan Supreme Court for summoning the Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in connection with the allegations of corruption in the Panama gate affair.

Can anyone in Pakistan ( preferably some lawyer ) inform me under which provision of Pakistan's Constitution this case in the Pakistan Supreme Court is going on ? Is it under the Court's original juriction under Article 184 of Pakistan's Constitution, or under its appellate juriction under Article 185 ? So far as I can gather from the internet, the original jurisdiction is limited to disputes between states, or where a Fundamental right is involved. None of these contingencies seem to be involved in this case.

I had some years earlier criticized the Pakistan Supreme Court for flouting all canons of jurisprudence by removing the then Prime Minister Mr. Gilani from office. A Prime Minister holds office as long he has the confidence of Parliament, and he does not in addition need the confidence of the Supreme Court.( see my article which was published in the Pakistani newspaper online ).